Changes in Psychological Need Fulfillment Over the Course of Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017) maintains that the psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are essential qualities of experience that individuals require to thrive. The present research examined the role of psychological need fulfillment in a clinical sample undergoing treatment for major depressive disorder. Fifty-one patients with a SCID-IV diagnosis for major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to 16 weeks of cognitive behavioral therapy or antidepressant medication. Depressive symptoms, cognitive errors, dysfunctional attitudes, and psychological need fulfillment were assessed at four time points (pre-treatment, week 4, week 8, and week 16). Psychological need fulfillment increased over the course of treatment and did not differ significantly between treatment conditions. Furthermore, increases in psychological need fulfillment were associated with decreases in depression severity over and above the effects of time, cognitive errors, and dysfunctional attitudes. Given the incremental predictive validity of need fulfillment, a better understanding of its role in the treatment for depression may prove beneficial to mental health researchers and practitioners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".